The Solution vs Hoax equation

[Liberty]

Well... I had some suggestions how to refine the idea.  Could you offer some?

Even *I* am qualified to examine some types of machines.  My carry-on toolkit: VOM/Oscilloscope/Ammeter, inductive voltage sensor, magnetometer, IR and thermocouple temp' probes, video camera, laptop, and basic tool set.
I would suggest that I could give an examination and report good enough to warrant dismissal or further verification.  Someone like TK could probably go much further.

I think Evolvingape, that perhaps you are to an extent....missing my point.

Inventors refusing a free "analysis" get no analysis. No money is spent and their refusal is recorded in the thread dedicated to their device.

Of course it is possible that an inventor will agree to an exploration team, talk to them on the phone, give them their address, and make an examination appointment then refuse to open the door.
I think in general though, a "we will be there, so if you aren't going to open the door, don't bother", and the fact that such an action would be highly publicized, would discourage most.

I also believe that if the 4 prime players in this thread (including yourself) all spent 20min on the phone with an inventor, we'd have a pretty good idea if it were a prankster.

Is there a risk that the discovery team could end up wasting their time? Yes.  If it's a mistake on the inventors part, it wouldn't be a waste of time after a remote analysis was made prior to deciding if it were interesting enough to pursue in person.  The whole point is to find the mistake and move on, or if there is no mistake, to verify it.   There is ample discovery prior to anyone actually going anywhere.

I think the "Team" would expose far more mistakes than hoaxes or frauds, simply because hoaxers and fraudsters don't want to be discovered as such, and would not submit to examination.
There is a difference between presenting theater to a journalist and letting 3 qualified people with test equipment probe your device.

The mistakes....well... everyone makes mistakes.  In this case however, we are only exploring the mistakes we can't obviously explain....which I think is worthwhile.

Either way, I am but one person, but I do think there is intelligence on this board (and likely in this thread) that could come up with a near-foolproof process.
One only has to begin looking at it as a matter of "How To".

The bigger issue that has to be addressed for inventors is:  How do you protect the inventor's reputation or idea and/or machine from someone stealing it, or whether it is successful or not?  Also what does the inventor have to look forward to as an incentive if approved, that will make him interested enough to want to risk a team looking at what he/she has worked on for years or months to achieve? 

[Tom Booth]

Hmmm... well,

From the last few posts since I was in here last, I'm beginning to think I misunderstood the intent. It seems the idea isn't so much to forward promising ideas or potentially workable inventions so much as to investigate probable hoaxes.

It seems to me also that there is certainly a problem. Anybody can photoshop a free energy video and make it look absolutely real, as a joke or a spoof or even with some intent to defraud I suppose. As a recent example, I spent over an hour listening to some YouTube radio show about some South African device that was "The real deal" Ready for market! Some overunity circuit. A guy on the program was going to be receiving one of the first production models off the line for testing and evaluation along with 200 others around the world.

Probably everyone else here is familiar with this. It was new to me.

Following up on it, well... I'll suspend judgement as I know nothing about it but due to some glitch involving the storage batteries no units were ever shipped. Months have gone by. The whole project apparently might just be scrapped if a solution can't be found. Real? A hoax? A Scam? Just a temporary delay ?

If it was a scam from the start, seems like they managed to fool the best investigators who seem to still be holding out some hope though they were left high and dry - so far, as far as I know.

I could slap together a DC motor/generator that runs and recharges its own batteries at a higher voltage - no problem, It could run for hours, no special circuitry needed, but I understand although it looks real. (It really does run and the battery voltage really does go up) but what you need to look at is the Watts.

Low voltage high amperage in -> high voltage lower amperage back to the batteries. Pump high voltage back to a battery and it appears to be charging but is actually being drained. Drained and cooked at the same time. Will any kind of circuit make a difference? I highly doubt it.

I suspect the "secret" circuitry never existed as it wouldn't be needed in the first place to create such an illusion. If it was real but didn't work, why not release it and let someone else tinker with it ?

Anyway, what I'm looking at from my own perspective is there are some without a money motive willing to disclose all they know or have discovered or believe but just don't have the funds to develop it.

I could, for example, probably build a prototype engine with what it would take to send a team to investigate and rule out some more or less obvious hoax or mysterious device.

In other words, if I were going to open a forum such as being proposed here one of the first rules would be that it would have to be "open source". But that's just me I guess. Everybody would like to hit the lottery or at least get a piece of the pie I suppose. I just don't want my grand children to grow up on a poisoned planet.

I don't really understand what Tusk has been driving at exactly. I watched his videos of a spinning motor and the wooden peg pendulum thing. If I throw a baseball it moves forward and spins simultaneously, unless I throw a knuckle ball. When I test a DC motor I have to hold it down tight with both hands as it will twist and roll across the floor otherwise. I can't really discern what the "paradox" is. Yet if I had an extra $10 to throw at something I'd rather give it to him than spend it to investigate some secret device connected with some get rich quick scheme or other as he doesn't appear to have anything to hide. Maybe he really does see something I don't. Though, even if his theory of some extra energy is real, I can't presently fathom how it might ever be harnessed. But maybe it is real and maybe it could be harnessed one day, who knows?

I see a spinning top or a gyroscope. Mere children's toys. But it is a complete mystery to me why they don't topple over. Seems like some kind of anti-gravity force at work holding them upright.

Suppose you put a magnet in the bottom of a top and spin it over a magnetic plate to eliminate friction, then put a bell jar over that and pump out the air to create a vacuum? How long would it spin suspended in a magnetic field in a vacuum? Why not indefinitely ? Would that be "perpetual motion"? Seems like a long time for something to stand there in defiance of gravity just from the force of the initial spin. Is there some other force involved that keeps it standing upright?

I think its good to try and see things from another's perspective. Especially when they claim to see something I don't. If two people see something in a radically different way, someone is seeing some sort of optical illusion or something and I don't rule out the possibility that that someone could be me.

[Liberty]

"From the last few posts since I was in here last, I'm beginning to think I misunderstood the intent. It seems the idea isn't so much to forward promising ideas or potentially workable inventions so much as to investigate probable hoaxes."

Well, it shouldn't be to hard to find the hoaxes, or non-working devices.  Time usually reveals the truth for free.  Rule of thumb; If it is using off the shelf devices (which are all under-unity) and the results are too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.  Also, don't use batteries.

On a real device, there would need to be investment and profit involved to be able to manufacture and promote the device, and reward the inventor for work that was invested by the inventor for free.  Open source would not work to bring forth a device to manufacture, or reward the inventor.

[Tusk]

@ audiomaker

I think your proposals thus far offer a very good 'rough draft' (or better) for a workable solution. Might I suggest that due to the various types of devices likely to be under scrutiny, including but not limited to variations in size, weight, complexity, therefore some might lend themselves to being replicated for less expense than the cost of even a single airline ticket (and let's not forget that if TK was on the field team we would need to hire an aircraft for which he holds certification). It seems a little extravagant to send a team of investigators when the device might be smaller than a shoebox and cost only a few hundred dollars to replicate - always assuming the necessary information is provided for replication, which I think it should be as a matter of course.

@ Liberty

Every case will likely be different, each 'applicant' having their own motives; particularly if you don't restrict the investigation to open source ideas. Was that your intention or did I misinterpret the main point of interest?

@ Tom Booth
You seem to have a nicely balanced outlook Tom; a pleasure to see that expressed so well. I suspect your input will be welcome here, by most members.

@evolvingape

Your statement 

the people who don't know what they are talking about (the majority)

can not now be justified by this statement

many of these laymen freely admit that they do not have the knowledge

The latter implies an intelligent community recognising their limitations; the former clearly indicates your own perception of a community weighing in regardless and even oblivious of their lack of expertise. The usual response now is to make a hasty retraction, apologise and sit quietly in the corner until everyone forgets about your poor judgement and appalling manners.

[Tom Booth]

The bigger issue that has to be addressed for inventors is:  How do you protect the inventor's reputation or idea and/or machine from someone stealing it, or whether it is successful or not?  Also what does the inventor have to look forward to as an incentive if approved, that will make him interested enough to want to risk a team looking at what he/she has worked on for years or months to achieve?

Good question, but...

It seems to me that if you are going to investigate, study, examine anything in an open forum on the internet, there is no possibility of any guarantee of any such protection.

I've posted my "invention" all over the internet in the hopes that someone would "steal" it. I don't care. Please do. with this one stipulation. Nobody gets an exclusive anything. It is for the benefit of all.

As far as incentive.

A better world and a better future for my kids is enough incentive for me.

Apparently that is not enough incentive for investors who want to see a monetary return on their investment. I think that is a shame. Isn't the prospect of living in a world without all the energy related concerns and problems we have now incentive enough for anybody?

My main concern has been how to ensure that my idea cannot be patented.

Patent something and it can be bought and sold and buried, if not by the energy monopolies by the government.

Anyone here read "The Sun Betrayed" ? Very informative read.

Photovoltaic panels for example could be made DIRT CHEAP. If the patents on such processes had not been bought out and buried. If photovoltaic panels were available at the price they SHOULD BE, you wouldn't have to wait 20 years to break even on your investment. More like six months.

"Protection" is publication, in as much detail and as far and wide as possible, so there is no possibility an idea (or its originator) could be buried IMO.

But I guess I'll get off the "open source" soapbox as this thread seems to be headed in some other direction.